Andriy I. Bandos

Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program

PURPOSE To assess cancer detection rates, false-positive rates before arbitration, positive predictive values for women recalled after arbitration, and the type of cancers detected with use of digital mammography alone and combined with tomosynthesis in a large prospective screening trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective, reader- and modality-balanced screening study of participants undergoing combined mammography plus tomosynthesis, the results of which were read independently by four different radiologists, is under way. The study was approved by a regional ethics committee, and all participants provided written informed consent. The authors performed a preplanned interim analysis of results from 12,631 examinations interpreted by using mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis from November 22, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Analyses were based on marginal log-linear models for binary data, accounting for correlated interpretations and adjusting for reader-specific performance levels by using a two-sided significance level of .0294. RESULTS Detection rates, including those for invasive and in situ cancers, were 6.1 per 1000 examinations for mammography alone and 8.0 per 1000 examinations for mammography plus tomosynthesis (27% increase, adjusted for reader; P = .001). False-positive rates before arbitration were 61.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography alone and 53.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography plus tomosynthesis (15% decrease, adjusted for reader; P < .001). After arbitration, positive predictive values for recalled patients with cancers verified later were comparable (29.1% and 28.5%, respectively, with mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis; P = .72). Twenty-five additional invasive cancers were detected with mammography plus tomosynthesis (40% increase, adjusted for reader; P < .001). The mean interpretation time was 45 seconds for mammography alone and 91 seconds for mammography plus tomosynthesis (P < .001). CONCLUSION The use of mammography plus tomosynthesis in a screening environment resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate and enabled the detection of more invasive cancers. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01248546.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Observer Performance Study

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare in a retrospective observer study the diagnostic performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with that of digital breast tomosynthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eight experienced radiologists interpreted images from 125 selected examinations, 35 with verified findings of cancer and 90 with no finding of cancer. The four display conditions included FFDM alone, 11 low-dose projections, reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis images, and a combined display mode of FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis images. Observers rated examinations using the screening BI-RADS rating scale and the free-response receiver operating characteristic paradigm. Observer performance levels were measured as the proportion of examinations prompting recall of patients for further diagnostic evaluation. The results were presented in terms of true-positive fraction and false-positive fraction. Performance levels were compared among the acquisitions and reading modes. Time to view and interpret an examination also was evaluated. RESULTS Use of the combination of digital breast tomosynthesis and FFDM was associated with 30% reduction in recall rate for cancer-free examinations that would have led to recall if FFDM had been used alone (p < 0.0001 for the participating radiologists, p = 0.047 in the context of a generalized population of radiologists). Use of digital breast tomosynthesis alone also tended to reduce recall rates, an average of 10%, although the observed decrease was not statistically significant (p = 0.09 for the participating radiologists). There was no convincing evidence that use of digital breast tomosynthesis alone or in combination with FFDM results in a substantial improvement in sensitivity. CONCLUSION Use of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast imaging may result in a substantial decrease in recall rate.

Two-View Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening with Synthetically Reconstructed Projection Images: Comparison with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Full-Field Digital Mammographic Images

PURPOSE To compare the performance of two versions of reconstructed two-dimensional (2D) images in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus the performance of standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS This trial had ethical committee approval, and all participants gave written informed consent. Examinations (n = 24 901) in women between the ages of 50 and 69 years (mean age, 59.2 years) were interpreted prospectively as part of a screening trial that included independent interpretations of FFDM plus DBT and reconstructed 2D images plus DBT. Reconstructed 2D images do not require radiation exposure. Using analyses for binary data that accounted for correlated interpretations and were adjusted for reader-specific volume, two versions (initial and current) of reconstructed 2D images used during trial periods 1 (from November 22, 2010, to December 21, 2011; 12 631 women) and 2 (from January 20, 2012, to December 19, 2012; 12 270 women) were compared in terms of cancer detection and false-positive rates with the corresponding FFDM plus DBT interpretations. RESULTS Cancer detection rates were 8.0, 7.4, 7.8, and 7.7 per 1000 screening examinations for FFDM plus DBT in period 1, initial reconstructed 2D images plus DBT in period 1, FFDM plus DBT in period 2, and current reconstructed 2D images plus DBT in period 2, respectively. False-positive scores were 5.3%, 4.6%, 4.6%, and 4.5%, respectively. Corresponding reader-adjusted paired comparisons of false-positive scores revealed significant differences for period 1 (P = .012) but not for period 2 (ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 1.11; P = .85). CONCLUSION The combination of current reconstructed 2D images and DBT performed comparably to FFDM plus DBT and is adequate for routine clinical use when interpreting screening mammograms.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Supplemental Diagnostic Mammographic Views for Evaluation of Noncalcified Breast Lesions

PURPOSE To compare the diagnostic performance of breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental mammography views in classification of masses, distortions, and asymmetries. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eight radiologists who specialized in breast imaging retrospectively reviewed 217 consecutively accrued lesions by using protocols that were HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved in 182 patients aged 31-60 years (mean, 50 years) who underwent diagnostic mammography and tomosynthesis. The lesions in the cohort included 33% (72 of 217) cancers and 67% (145 of 217) benign lesions. Eighty-four percent (182 of 217) of the lesions were masses, 11% (25 of 217) were asymmetries, and 5% (10 of 217) were distortions that were initially detected at clinical examination in 8% (17 of 217), at mammography in 80% (173 of 217), at ultrasonography (US) in 11% (25 of 217), or at magnetic resonance imaging in 1% (2 of 217). Histopathologic examination established truth in 191 lesions, US revealed a cyst in 12 lesions, and 14 lesions had a normal follow-up. Each lesion was interpreted once with tomosynthesis and once with supplemental mammographic views; both modes included the mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views in a fully crossed and balanced design by using a five-category Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment and a probability-of-malignancy score. Differences between modes were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model for BI-RADS-based sensitivity and specificity and with modified Obuchowski-Rockette approach for probability-of-malignancy-based area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS Average probability-of-malignancy-based area under the ROC curve was 0.87 for tomosynthesis versus 0.83 for supplemental views (P < .001). With tomosynthesis, the false-positive rate decreased from 85% (989 of 1160) to 74% (864 of 1160) (P < .01) for cases that were rated BI-RADS category 3 or higher and from 57% (663 of 1160) to 48% (559 of 1160) for cases rated BI-RADS category 4 or 5 (P < .01), without a meaningful change in sensitivity. With tomosynthesis, more cancers were classified as BI-RADS category 5 (39% [226 of 576] vs 33% [188 of 576]; P = .017) without a decrease in specificity. CONCLUSION Tomosynthesis significantly improved diagnostic accuracy for noncalcified lesions compared with supplemental mammographic views.

Comparison of Two-dimensional Synthesized Mammograms versus Original Digital Mammograms Alone and in Combination with Tomosynthesis Images

PURPOSE To assess interpretation performance and radiation dose when two-dimensional synthesized mammography (SM) images versus standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images are used alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis images. MATERIALS AND METHODS A fully crossed, mode-balanced multicase (n = 123), multireader (n = 8), retrospective observer performance study was performed by using deidentified images acquired between 2008 and 2011 with institutional review board approved, HIPAA-compliant protocols, during which each patient signed informed consent. The cohort included 36 cases of biopsy-proven cancer, 35 cases of biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 52 normal or benign cases (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] score of 1 or 2) with negative 1-year follow-up results. Accuracy of sequentially reported probability of malignancy ratings and seven-category forced BI-RADS ratings was evaluated by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS Probability of malignancy-based mean AUCs for SM and FFDM images alone was 0.894 and 0.889, respectively (difference, -0.005; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.062, 0.054; P = .85). Mean AUC for SM with tomosynthesis and FFDM with tomosynthesis was 0.916 and 0.939, respectively (difference, 0.023; 95% CI: -0.011, 0.057; P = .19). In terms of the reader-specific AUCs, five readers performed better with SM alone versus FFDM alone, and all eight readers performed better with combined FFDM and tomosynthesis (absolute differences from 0.003 to 0.052). Similar results were obtained by using a nonparametric analysis of forced BI-RADS ratings. CONCLUSION SM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis is comparable in performance to FFDM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis and may eliminate the need for FFDM as part of a routine clinical study.

Predictors of Clinical Improvement in Rituximab-Treated Refractory Adult and Juvenile Dermatomyositis and Adult Polymyositis

To identify the clinical and laboratory predictors of clinical improvement in a cohort of myositis patients treated with rituximab.

Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to assess diagnostic performance when retrospectively interpreting full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and breast tomosynthesis examinations under a free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) paradigm. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed FROC analysis of a previously reported study in which eight experienced radiologists interpreted 125 examinations, including 35 with verified cancers. The FROC paradigm involves detecting, locating, and rating each suspected abnormality. Radiologists reviewed and rated both FFDM alone and a combined display mode of FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (combined). Observer performance levels were assessed and compared with respect to the fraction of correctly identified abnormalities, the number of reported location-specific findings (both true and false), and their associated ratings. The analysis accounts for the number and locations of findings and the location-based ratings using a summary performance index (Λ), which is the FROC analog of the area between the receiver operating characteristic curve and the diagonal (chance) line. RESULTS Under the FROC paradigm, each reader detected more true abnormalities associated with cancer, or a higher true-positive fraction, under the combined mode. In an analysis focused on both the number of findings and associated location-based ratings, each of the radiologists performed better under the combined mode compared with FFDM alone, with increases in Λ ranging from 5% to 34%. On average, under the combined mode radiologists achieved a 16% improvement in Λ compared with the FFDM alone mode (95% CI, 7-26%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION We showed that DBT-based breast imaging in combination with FFDM could result in better performance under the FROC paradigm.

Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666

BACKGROUND Mammography is not widely available in all countries, and breast cancer incidence is increasing. We considered performance characteristics using ultrasound (US) instead of mammography to screen for breast cancer. METHODS Two thousand eight hundred nine participants were enrolled at 20 sites in the United States, Canada, and Argentina in American College of Radiology Imaging 6666. Two thousand six hundred sixty-two participants completed three annual screens (7473 examinations) with US and film-screen (n = 4351) or digital (n = 3122) mammography and had biopsy or 12-month follow-up. Cancer detection, recall, and positive predictive values were determined. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS One hundred ten women had 111 breast cancer events: 89 (80.2%) invasive cancers, median size 12 mm. The number of US screens to detect one cancer was 129 (95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] = 110 to 156), and for mammography 127 (95% CI = 109 to 152). Cancer detection was comparable for each of US and mammography at 58 of 111 (52.3%) vs 59 of 111 (53.2%, P = .90), with US-detected cancers more likely invasive (53/58, 91.4%, median size 12 mm, range = 2-40 mm), vs mammography at 41 of 59 (69.5%, median size 13 mm, range = 1-55 mm, P < .001). Invasive cancers detected by US were more frequently node-negative, 34 of 53 (64.2%) vs 18 of 41 (43.9%) by mammography (P = .003). For 4814 incidence screens (years 2 and 3), US had higher recall and biopsy rates and lower PPV of biopsy (PPV3) than mammography: The recall rate was 10.7% (n = 515) vs 9.4% (n = 453, P = .03), the biopsy rate was 5.5% (n = 266) vs 2.0% (n = 97, P < .001), and PPV3 was 11.7% (31/266) vs 38.1% (37/97, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Cancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections. False positives are more common with US screening.

A Framework for Random-Effects ROC Analysis: Biases with the Bootstrap and Other Variance Estimators

In this article, we analyze the three-way bootstrap estimate of the variance of the reader-averaged nonparametric area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The setting for this work is medical imaging, and the experimental design involves sampling from three distributions: a set of normal and diseased cases (patients), and a set of readers (doctors). The experiment we consider is fully crossed in that each reader reads each case. A reading generates a score that indicates the readers level of suspicion that the patient is diseased. The distribution of scores for the normal patients is compared to the distribution of scores for the diseased patients via an ROC curve, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) summarizes the readers diagnostic ability to separate the normal patients from the diseased ones. We find that the bootstrap estimate of the variance of the reader-averaged AUC is biased, and we represent this bias in terms of moments of success outcomes. This representation helps unify and improve several current methods for multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) ROC analysis.

Ultrasound Guided Core Biopsy versus Fine Needle Aspiration for Evaluation of Axillary Lymphadenopathy in Patients with Breast Cancer

Rationale and Objectives. To compare the sensitivities of ultrasound guided core biopsy and fine needle aspiration (FNA) for detection of axillary lymph node metastases in patients with a current diagnosis of ipsilateral breast cancer. Materials and Methods. From December 2008 to December 2010, 105 patients with breast cancer and abnormal appearing lymph nodes in the ipsilateral axilla consented to undergo FNA of an axillary node immediately followed by core biopsy of the same node, both with ultrasound guidance. Experienced pathologists evaluated the aspirate cytology without knowledge of the core histology. Cytology and core biopsy results were compared to sentinel node excision or axillary dissection pathology. Sensitivities were compared using McNemars test. Results. Of 70 patients with axillary node metastases, FNA was positive in 55/70 (78.6%) and core was positive in 61/70 (87.1%) (P = 0.18). The FNA and core results were discordant in 14/70 (20%) patients. Ten cases were FNA negative/core positive. Four cases were FNA positive/core negative. Conclusion. Core biopsy detected six (8.6%) more cases of metastatic lymphadenopathy than FNA but the difference in sensitivities was not statistically significant. Core biopsy should be considered if the node is clearly imaged and readily accessible. FNA is a good alternative when a smaller needle is desired due to node location or other patient factors. This trial is registered with NCT01920139.